happysadfun wrote:replace brunei with sabat
Marvaddin wrote:Bonus of 12 would be too much.
I still think Cote Divoire has a big name and would be better remove it.
Central America? Please, please change that name...
Do you really want those insignificant things like Tierra del Fuego in the map? Use the big ones is my suggestion.
In Asia, I think would be better having Russia splitted than those minor countries like Sri Lanka, and mainly Taiwan and Malaysia (lets use simplest routes in those points?)
Ok, you want split Indonesia, but 4 is too much, isnt it?
How about to use Antartic? It will not be an accurate one without it! The territories can be named France possession or something alike.
Marvaddin also wrote:
Bonus of 12 would be too much. Maybe not in escalating games, but in flat rate and specially no cards, game over. No one would get another continent. But, the games would last 2 centuries before someone hold a continent, too. No... continents that big arent good, I think, lets make more than 6 continents, friend.
that bonus really isnt that much, considering with 114 countries and 6 people, each person would get 6 armies on their first turn.
that difference between bonus and initial armies isnt that big considering in classic map you get 3 armies to start and the largest bonus is 7.
3/7 is more of a change than 6/12
1. This map needs more continents. More continents would help the game progress faster but would solve the problem of Africa being too valuble. Possible splits:
Africa = North Africa + Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia = Middle East + Orient + Former Soviet Union (would have to split up Russia some more)
Europe could remain as is, it would be the Mother Load, the equivalent of Asia on the Classic map, i.e. take Europe = Total Domination
losrivas also wrote:
Crazy idea I had: What if there were some non-adjacent connections, like in the Philipines map? That would add to the "Modernity" of the map, since countries that are adjacent to each other aren't necessarily the ones fighting these days. What if USA had "aerial" connections to other spots on the globe, like the Middle East or Korea? That would give USA more borders without adding more territories, and make North America a more valuable continent. Another idea that was proposed earlier was to give some more powerful countries an additional bonus, like the US or China, etc. These little bonuses could help the game move along quicker even before any continents have been secured.
p gizzle wrote:
what if you didnt base bonuses off strategic power, but power in the real world. Like, what you could do, or even me, is rank the countries by order of power right now. like, US could be 1 and etc. then you add up all the numbers. the continent with the lowest number would have the highest bonus and so on
I like the way you think. I think you should make Antartica, would be a good addition.zim wrote:On the Russia split versus Sri Lanka, etc., my bias is to use real countries wherever possible and only create, merge or seperate territories where necessary for fit or game play/game balance. So I'd keep Asia largely the way it is. Might delete one or two more of the tiny countries (nepal, bangladesh, etc.) if required for continental balance but at the moment I'm content with Asia.
On Indonesia I could put pieces of Indonesia back togther but to maintain balance I think I'd then have to split Australia into more pieces to keep the number of territoires the same. Is this what you'd like to see?
I've left Antarctica off as I didn't feel it add anything to the strategic situation that wasn't achieved by the sea lanes between continents in the south. My thinking was/is that Antarctica would have four or five subdivision (American, British, French, Russian or perhaps named for geographic features) and that these would be bordered by New Zealand/Australia, South Africa and Tierra Del Feugo and that I'd eliminate the direct southern tip to southern tip connections. If that was the case then I expect the optimal strategy would be for the holders of those continents to 'push' their borders out one territory into Antarctica the way a South America player tries to hold North Africa in Classic and that given theere are three of these potential border extenders holding Antrartcia would be untenable unless it had an artificially high bonus. Thoughts?
Put Australia back together, if you want more territories there are countless island nations you couold add, eg. the Solomon Islands (which are those islands you have marked to the east of Papua New Gunei), East Timor, Micronesia, Fiji etc. . Make a connection between New Caledonia and New Zealand and Solomon Islands if you add them. If you have to split up Australia (dont think you should), make tasmania a country and keep Australia mainland whole. There is no reason to split Oceania countries up, there are so many of them.
gavin_sidhu wrote:happysadfun wrote:replace brunei with sabat
Im guessing you mean Sabah? The region he/she called Brunei contains the east malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as Brunei. The land was all part of Brunei until British came and took it and gave it to Malaysia. My ancestors lived in Malaysia and i think it should be called Brunei, as its the real world map and should have more country names then state names in it.
P Gizzle wrote:maybe, since you included Alaska, include Hawaii. There would only be one way in, from Indonesia, and one way out, to US
N0g wrote:P Gizzle wrote:maybe, since you included Alaska, include Hawaii. There would only be one way in, from Indonesia, and one way out, to US
You mean Japan, not Indonesia.
Overall I like it, it's giving Europe a run for its money for the map where continents become insignificant quickly (in escalating cards game).
Users browsing this forum: Fewnix